After a drawn-out battle over the building, the Natchez Pecan Shelling Company factory was demolished Thursday.

The demolition was the result of an executive order issued by Mayor Phillip West, a move some say broke the law.

The pecan factory has been a point of contention between a group of citizens, developers and the city in recent months, from the design of the condos proposed to take its place to the sale of the land to the developers.

In fact, a suit against the city regarding the sale of the land, among other things, is being appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court.

According to the mayor, that’s where the confusion comes in. The city and developers have said in the past the land, previously public property, was sold and now belongs to the developers.

But since possession of the property was in question and the case was being appealed, West said, he felt it was the city’s duty to knock the building down for safety reasons.

“I issued an emergency executive order Wednesday to have it demolished,” West said. “I’ve had reports of people going in and out, kids skateboarding in there. I felt it was necessary to protect the health and welfare of our residents and visitors to have it demolished.”

That move, no matter how well intentioned it may have been, was against the law, said Ken P’Pool, director of historic preservation division of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History.

Because the building was historically significant, the MDAH had to issue a permit for its destruction.

“Under the state antiquities law, the publicly owned property of historic nature is subject to designation as a Mississippi landmark, as this property was designated,” P’Pool said. “That law does require that before any action is taken, the local government or state agency in control of the property must apply to the Department of Archives and History for a permit.”

P’Pool said his department had issued no such permit for Thursday’s demolition.

In fact, the city would have had to meet several requirements in this case, he said.

Those include the submission of final construction documents for development, the submission of a signed contract for the construction of the approved project and a final site report of the geotechnical study of the bluff land to make sure it was stable enough to hold the project. The city would also have to retain possession of all archeological artifacts removed from the site.

None of those conditions has been met, P’Pool said.

Because of that, he said, MDAH met with the state attorney general’s office, which P’Pool said issued a cease and desist order for the property, requiring the city to stop all destruction.

The attorney general was out of the office Thursday and could not be reached for comment.

Demolition began first thing Thursday morning. About an hour later, Public Works Director Ronnie Ivey, operating one of the machines, received a call on his cell phone, and work stopped.

Work resumed Thursday afternoon, and by the end of the day, the building was rubble.

West, who was in Jackson on city business Thursday, said he had the cease and desist order read to him.

“I did not direct (city workers) to discontinue,” West said. “I told them to continue to execute the order until I called them and told them to stop. I needed to find out what (the cease and desist) order meant and so on.”

West said the cease and desist order read that if someone was in violation of it, he could be jailed or fined a certain amount per day.

Furthermore, West said, the building itself was not a historic building — only the land was historic.

West said he did not consult any aldermen before he made his executive order.

He did meet with the developers, Ed Worley and Larry Brown, along with others Tuesday, but he did not ask their permission, he said.

“I did not tell them I was going to issue an executive order,” West said. “Neither did I ask them if it was OK.

“We talked with them about where we were in the process and what their timeframe was in terms of developing condos — what the problems here in relation with them wanting to move forward with the project,” West said. “We discussed that based on an arrangement made with archives and history and until the court proceedings were finalized, they could not move forward.”

Some of his information about the potential danger the building posed came from that discussion, West said.

“It poses a danger to some persons being injured which would put the city and/or developer in a liable position,” West said.

The developers had not made an agreement with the city to demolish the building, nor were they paying to have it done, West said.

Brown said he did not know about the demolition ahead of time.

“We’ve expressed concern to the mayor and the city officials regarding hazardous conditions,” Brown said. “We officially notified the city and state about the conditions June 2006. We were not aware the building was coming down this morning, but there’s no question it needed to.”

Ben Hillyer contributed to this article.